Feasibility Study Guidelines

Offshore Wind Energy Projects
Feasibility Study Guidelines

SEAWIND
ALTENER PROJECT 4.1030/Z/01-103/2001
By Per Nielsen, EMD

Ver. 3.0 June 2003
Offshore foundation cost

1.000
900
800
700
Cost (€/kW)
600
500
400
300
200
100
-
1 2
3
4
5 45
WTG 6 35
s ize ( 7
MW 8 25 )
) 9 15 pt (m
105 rd
e
te
Wa
- - 100 100 - 200 200 - 300 300 - 400 400 - 500

500 - 600 600 - 700 700 - 800 800 - 900 900 - 1.000
This document gives a number of guidelines for calculation of feasibility

for offshore wind energy projects. The guidelines have to be seen as a
help to get started identifying the more important factors going offshore
with wind energy projects. The guidelines are mainly based on practical
experience from the Danish offshore projects extrapolated based on
simple assumptions, but also specific new developments in the WindPRO
software tool (ver. 2.4) mainly for offshore purposes are introduced.
SEAWIND – Altener project – Feasibility Study Guidelines 1

Energi- og Miljødata, Niels Jernesvej 10, DK-9220 Aalborg Ø,
Tel: +45 9635 4444, Fax: +45 9635 4446, Email: emd@emd.dk, www.emd.dk
Content:
MAIN DESIGN CRITERIA OVERVIEW...............................................................................5
POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT (PPA)........................................................................7
WIND RESOURCE ASSESSMENT – MICRO LEVEL........................................................8
WATER DEPTH / FOUNDATION COSTS ..........................................................................9
GRID CONNECTION.........................................................................................................12
Internal cables between WTGs ......................................................................................................14
Transformer Station Off Shore ......................................................................................................14
Other Grid Connection Costs.........................................................................................................14
Grid Losses and Voltage Increase..................................................................................................14
EFFICIENCY VERSUS COST - WIND FARM LAYOUT – WTG PRICE AND

MODIFICATIONS FOR OFFSHORE PURPOSE ..............................................................17
Wind farm layout ...........................................................................................................................18
Summing up on Feasibility Changes relative to on shore..............................................................19
VISUAL IMPACT/INTEGRATION .....................................................................................21
NOISE FROM OFF SHORE WIND FARMS ......................................................................22
PROTECTION INTERESTS ..............................................................................................23
SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT FOR OFFSHORE OPTIMISATION ..................................24
More advanced park layout design (arc layout and parallel rows in radials)............................24
The Park Design Object .................................................................................................................24
The WTG Area Object ...................................................................................................................26
Optimisation of “regular pattern layouts” including water depth considerations ....................27
Output to spreadsheet for further optimisation............................................................................30

Example investigating best row and in row distance.....................................................................32

Main Design Criteria Overview
Main design criteria's for offshore wind farm feasibility
Offshore solutions will in generel beconsidered as "less feasible" than on
shore. The higher energy production will normally not level out the higher
costs. But due to the large development potential and environment issues
offshore probably will expand fast in the future.
Key figures:
Energy production: DK-Off shore 3500 MWh/MW Offshore-extra:
(Denmark) DK-inland 2200 MWh/MW 159%
DK-coast near 2800 MWh/MW 125%
Costs (Denmark) Cost onshore 874 €/kW Offshore-extra:

Cost offshore 1411 €/kW 162%
Macro level:
Regional wind climate - EU-Windatlas off shore.
Power purchase agreements (PPA)
Micro level:
Wind resource assessment
Water depth / foundation costs
Development
Grid connection
Efficiency vs. cost - wind farm layout - WTG mod.
Visual impact/integration (+Noise)
Protection interests
Birds/other environmental interests
Fishing
Military
Flight routes
Ship traffic/marks
Tourism
Local political involvement/approving
Organisation
---> Politicians (municipality/county)

^ Labour/industry
^ "Green people" movements
^ Local ownership
Investor / developer capability
The different main criteria to be considered are divided into two main groups -
Development and Organisation. This paper only deals with the Development criterias.
(Technical aspects)

Regional Wind Climate
From table above: 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 W/m^2
WTG WTG Rotor WTG-
(MW) diameter (m) M^2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.39 0.38 0.37 0.36 0.35 0.34 0.33 0.32 0.31 0.3 efficiency
1 50 1,963 1,376 1,720 2,064 2,348 2,614 2,864 3,096 3,311 3,509 3,689 3,853 3,999 4,128 MWh/year
1.3 60 2,827 1,981 2,477 2,972 3,381 3,765 4,124 4,458 4,768 5,053 5,313 5,548 5,759 5,944 MWh/year
1.7 70 3,848 2,697 3,371 4,045 4,602 5,124 5,613 6,068 6,490 6,877 7,231 7,552 7,838 8,091 MWh/year
2 80 5,027 3,523 4,403 5,284 6,010 6,693 7,331 7,926 8,476 8,983 9,445 9,863 10,238 10,568 MWh/year
3 90 6,362 4,458 5,573 6,687 7,607 8,471 9,279 10,031 10,728 11,369 11,954 12,483 12,957 13,375 MWh/year
4 100 7,854 5,504 6,880 8,256 9,391 10,458 11,455 12,384 13,244 14,035 14,758 15,411 15,996 16,512 MWh/year
50 m hub
100 m hub
Figure 1 The table at the bottom show how much a stand alone WTG in different sizes will produce at given
colour code.

The wind resource is the basis for the off shore wind farm. Note that for off shore there are
no hills or mountains to speed up the wind. On land, even the poor areas with green
colours can give good wind sites due to high speed up when sited on a mountain ridge –
this means e.g. that in Germany, where the southern part has “poor” colours (green), see
below, there are wind turbines producing even more than the best in northern Germany
with a much better regional wind climate (red colour) due to mountain speed up.
In the table above, you can from the colour on the map go into the table below to get a
rough impression on the possible energy production for an unobstructed off shore WTG at
least 10 km from shore. Larger wind farms will typically have array losses of 5- 15%. Grid
losses of approximately 5% must be subtracted additionally.
Figure 2 European Wind Atlas (Risø)
Power Purchase Agreement (PPA)

Two things have to be fulfilled – there have be an agreement, that makes sure that it is
possible to sell the electricity produced, and normally a reasonable knowledge about the
price paid per kWh is needed at least 10 years ahead. It is the combination of the wind
resource and the price paid per kWh that gives the most important input for the feasibility
study. If there is no chance of paying back the investment within around 10 years
(maximum 15 years), the project will normally not be regarded as feasible.
In some countries, the PPA set up limits on the project size, normally measured in MW, in
order to get a PPA.

Wind Resource Assessment – micro level
Based on the colour map the wind resource can only be estimated within an accuracy of
around 40% - and if the wind farm is closer to land than 10 km, there can be large
withdrawals to be added.
For further info on expected energy yield, the possibilities are:
1. Calculation based on regional wind statistics based on terrain description and

proposed wind farm layout.
2. Calculations based on other local measurements available off shore or near shore
3. Control/calibration of calculations with existing WTGs near (< 25 km) site.
4. Establishment of new measurement masts off shore
Roughly, the uncertainty based on the 4 levels is:
1. 25%
2. 20%
3. 15%
4. 10%
For all levels the uncertainty depends much on how reliable the available data are and
how well these are processed. Measure height, measure period and equipment quality are
important parameters.
To establish off shore measurements, minimum a 50 m high measure mast should be

established which is rather costly.
Rough price estimation for an on-shore mast with sensors and loggers is €10.000 - Off
shore, the cost will probably be around €50.000 due to the off shore foundation and the
extra installation costs.
Besides the equipment comes the measurements (continuous data collection and
validation) + final processing (long term correction). The cost can vary much – 30 – 50.000
€ must be assumed. This means that a 1-year measuring campaign off shore will roughly
cost 100.000 €.
Examples of equipment and data can be seen at www.winddata.com, where some data
are also available.
Withdrawal due to the distance to the coastline can roughly be given by the graph below.

3 MW - 80 m hub - on shore roughness class: 2
130%
120%
Improved energy yield
110%
100%
Main wind direction:
90% From sea

80% From land
Along shore
70%
60%
-9000
-8000
-7000
-6000
-5000
-4000
-3000
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000
15000
16000
17000
18000
19000
20000
Distance from coastline (m)
Figure 3 Change in energy production with distance from coastline
Based on a wind direction distribution, where around 60% of the energy production comes
from the main wind direction (like in Denmark where 60% comes from west-southwest
directions, the decrease typically will be 12%-28% at near-shore sites depending on the
orientation of the coastline relative to main wind direction. At distances more than 5 km
away there will be almost no reduction. If the wind direction is more uniform (e.g. at
Creete, Greece, where almost 100% of the energy comes from north west), the sensitivity
of the coastline orientation will be higher. Also if there are mountains or higher roughness
of the land the decrease versus distance will change.
Water Depth / Foundation Costs

So far, the water depths outside the range of 2m - 30m have not been considered relevant
for off shore wind farms. Below 2 m there will be problems with accessibility by boat (but
special designed vehicles might be an alternative for transportation of the equipment to
site). More than 30 m has so far been considered too expensive – but there is not an exact
upper limit. Even floating WTGs are considered for very large water depths.
3 types of foundations are normally considered as alternatives:
Gravity (2- 20 m)
Mono pillar (5 – 30 m)
Jacket (15 – 30 m)

Basis price for 8 m water depth based on experiences from Denmark
so far: 250-300 €/kW complete with installation. Traditionally
foundation cost on land are 40 – 50 €/kW, so the increase is around a
factor 7.
Increase per m additional water depth roughly: 2%
The foundation costs represent 20-25% of the total project costs
The foundation costs can vary very much with seabed conditions and
weather conditions (high waves, tidal or icing)
In general the price does not vary much depending on type of foundation – it is more a
question of finding the most suitable solution for the specific conditions. Note also that the
foundation solution can affect the WTG price – in both directions. At Horns Rev, DK, a
mono pillar foundation add 9 m height above sea level, which decreases the needs for
tower height, but on the other hand the natural frequencies of the foundation demand that
the tower construction have to be a 150 ton solution where the normal weight for this tower
height is 110 t.
The prices are of course very rough figures, but for a pre-feasibility study this should be
good enough. Many factors influence the best choice of foundation type and the costs. For
example the sea bottom conditions can change the costs radically. On bedrock seafloor
cheaper solutions have been seen based on drilling holes in the rock for mono pillar
implementation (Bockstigen, Gotland, Sweden).
Below an example of the cost composition for a Gravity foundation on 8 m water is shown.
(Samsø/ Niras).

Set-up of production facilities
Gravity foundation cost (Niras)
Foundation ex Cones
Cones for ice break
Installation
Platform
Weight fill
Ground dig off/clapping
Smoothing layer
Erosion protection
Cover for vessel
Bollards, latter's etc
Cable tubes
Protection (corr/lightn)
Unforeseen , 10%
Design (consultant)
Figure 4 Gravity foundation cost breakdown
Note that cones for ice break are of course only a demand in northern regions – but not
only the cone – also the all over dimension is affected if there is a risk of thick ice.
Note also that weight fill is a quite large cost – but it is considered in the calculations, that
using special heavy weight fill is cheaper than increasing the dimensions of the gravity
foundation.
A spreadsheet model developed for a rough calculation of foundation is shown below:
Basis size: Basis cost

2 MW 670 k€ 335 €/kW
10 m dept 2% Percent change per m dept
80 Rotor 80% Percent change per load factor change

Hub
70 height
112000 Load factor (hub x (RD/2)^2)
Based on those simple assumptions, the cost is calculated and shown in the below graph.

Offshore foundation cost
1.000
900
800
700
Cost (€/kW)
600
500
400
300
200
100
-
1 2
3
4
5
45
WTG 6
35
s ize ( 7
8
25
MW )
) 9 t (m
15
10 ep
rd
5
te
Wa
- - 100 100 - 200 200 - 300 300 - 400 400 - 500

500 - 600 600 - 700 700 - 800 800 - 900 900 - 1.000
Figure 5 The interesting fact is that there might be an upper limit in WTG size due to foundation costs, but new
technical solutions might “break” the curve.
Grid Connection
Grid connection costs can vary much. One of the main uncertainties is where the nearest
connection point on land is which is “strong enough” to receive the power from the wind
farm. Often it will be necessary to upgrade the grid on land and maybe install a new land
based sub station. These cost we cannot give any guidelines for as it can be anything
between zero and many millions of EURO.
For the cable connection from the shore to the off shore wind farm, the following guidelines
can be given.

Sea cable cost
500 500
450 Offshore 450
400 trafo normally 400
Cable cost (€/m)
350 needed 350

y = 1,5x + 84,9
300 300
250 250
200 200
150 150 kV voltage 150
120
100 level 100
50 60 50
30
- 0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Wind farm size (MVA)
Figure 6 Cost of different cable sizes - for each voltage group 300, 400, 500 mm^2 CU cables are shown - for 150
kV level also 630 mm^2 CU cables are shown as rightmost point.
The needed sea cable for connection between land and wind farm is mainly decided by
the size of the Windfarm in MVA = MW/cosφ, where cosφ is around 0.85-0.95 dependent
on the level of compensation for reactive power in the wind farm. Normally it is not allowed
to perform a full compensation (cosφ=1) due to security reasons.
As seen, the cable costs increases with the wind farm size due to cable size – the cables
in the figure are 300, 400, 500 mm^2 CU and for 150 kV level also 630 mm^2 CU 3 phase
sea cables. Prices of course also depend slightly on the length, as a larger deliverance will
open the possibilities of getting a better price. Alternative to 3 phase cables 3 x 1 phase
cables will allow higher MVA for same cable dimensions, but also higher prices.
The above prices are only for the cable connecting the Windfarm to the shore. Other costs
are:
Grid connection:
Number or Prices k€ Per unit or
Off shore length (m) Voltage(kV) mm^2 Material Lines/cable For all per meter, € €/kW
Sea cable, from wind farm to shore 35500 150 630 CU Cable 17,750 500 74
In row cables 35850 30 300 CU Cable 3,585 100 15
Rows to collect point cables 3864 30 300 CU Cable 386 100 2
Cable roll out/Wash down, variable 75214 3,761 50 16
Cable roll out/wash down, fixed cost 500 500,000 2
Total number of WTG connectors 80 2,000 25,000 8
Off shore HV station 1 150/30 kV 15,000 15,000,000 63
Connection (electrical work)
Other fixed costs 2,000 2,000,000 8
Other variable costs
On shore
From shore to HV-grid
HV station (if needed)
Connection (electrical work)
Compensation (reactive power)
Other fixed costs 34,320 34,320,000 143
Other variable costs
Total 79,302 330
Figure 7 Example of estimated costs for a 240 MW Windfarm (80 x 3 MW) – the on shore costs are just roughly
estimated and not divided into different parts as it will differ much from place to place.

Cable roll out - wash down: from 15 – 70 €/m depending on the bottom conditions and
the need of washing down the cable. On a rocky seabed, wash down is of course not
possible, and other cover arrangements might be needed. But it might also not be needed
if there is no sea traffic in the region.
Internal cables between WTGs

In-between the WTGs normally 30 - 33 kV are used, as this is the typically transformer
size in offshore WTGs (on land normally 10 – 20 kV are used). The reason for not using
higher voltage in the WTGs is mainly that the space demand for higher voltage is much
larger and the arrangement will not fit into the standard tower sizes. But the manufactures
are working on solutions for this.
The cost of 150 mm2 CU interconnection cables is approximately 85 €/m. These are
normally large enough for the internal connection (depending on the connection layout,
larger cables might be used for a part of the connection) – also here cable wash down may
be added.
Transformer Station Off Shore

For larger wind farms, where more than 33 kV connection to land will be needed (larger
than approx. 40 MW), an off shore transformer arrangement will be needed. The cost of
this is quite high. For the Danish large off shore projects, 150/32 kV - 180 MW transformer
are used with a cost of approximately € 8 million (60 mio. DKK) including foundation and
installation.
Other Grid Connection Costs

Cable roll out, connections in WTGs and the previously mentioned on shore costs are
included in the table below as an example of the complete grid connection costs. Note that
there is much to save at smaller projects (< 40 MW) where an offshore transformer station
can be avoided.
Grid Losses and Voltage Increase

Not only the costs are important, but also the losses and voltage increase can be deciding
factors for choosing the right voltage level and cable dimensions.

Loss and voltage at different loads, 5 km 30 kW - 30 kV - 3
x 300 mm^2 CU Cable
1.4%
Full load loss (%)
1.2% y = 0.0004x + 3E-05
1.0% Volt increase (%)
0.8%
0.6%
0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Wind farm output ( MW)
Figure 8 Loss and voltage increase versus load
The above figure shows a calculation example for a 30 kW Windfarm, which goes “to the
limit” of the cable capacity. The losses (%) versus the wind farm output are calculated and
it is seen to be a linear equation. This is used for calculating the real losses:
Calculation of grid losses vs WTG output Loss percent of full load loss: 67%
Weibull V mean: (m/s) 7.8 MWh/MW 3,003 Y-loss SUM loss - % 0.80%
k 2 MW MWh/y 0.04% Sum loss (MWh) 71.93
A 8.77 3 9,008.4 Losses 5km 300 mm^2 CU-30kV line
Wind speed freq hours Power Curv Prod. (MWh) % kWh/h MWh/y
3 6.9% 607.9 6 3.6 0.00 0.0001 0.00
4 8.4% 740.0 77 57.0 0.03 0.0237 0.02
5 9.4% 822.9 188 154.7 0.08 0.1414 0.12
6 9.8% 855.9 354 303.0 0.14 0.5013 0.43
7 9.6% 843.2 585 493.3 0.23 1.3689 1.15
8 9.1% 792.9 887 703.3 0.35 3.1471 2.50
9 8.2% 715.2 1255 897.5 0.50 6.3001 4.51
10 7.1% 620.7 1657 1,028.5 0.66 10.9826 6.82
11 5.9% 519.6 2056 1,068.4 0.82 16.9085 8.79
12 4.8% 420.3 2418 1,016.4 0.97 23.3869 9.83
13 3.8% 329.0 2695 886.7 1.08 29.0521 9.56
14 2.8% 249.4 2865 714.6 1.15 32.8329 8.19
15 2.1% 183.3 2948 540.3 1.18 34.7628 6.37
16 1.5% 130.7 2982 389.6 1.19 35.5693 4.65
17 1.0% 90.4 2994 270.6 1.20 35.8561 3.24
18 0.7% 60.7 2998 182.0 1.20 35.9520 2.18
19 0.5% 39.6 2999 118.8 1.20 35.9760 1.43
20 0.3% 25.1 3000 75.3 1.20 36.0000 0.90
21 0.2% 15.5 3000 46.4 1.20 36.0000 0.56
22 0.1% 9.3 3000 27.8 1.20 36.0000 0.33
23 0.1% 5.4 3000 16.2 1.20 36.0000 0.19
24 0.0% 3.1 3000 9.2 1.20 36.0000 0.11
25 0.0% 1.7 3000 5.1 1.20 36.0000 0.06

The table shows how the information of a linear loss-% vs. WTG power output gives the
loss vs. wind speed. With the given Weibull distribution, the total losses are calculated to
67% of the nominal output losses. This means that for evaluating the loss roughly, we only
need to calculate the nominal power loss and withdraw 33%. So the loss versus cable
length is given in next figure.
Loss and voltage at full load, different cable lenghts, 30

kW - 30 kV - 3 x 300 mm^2 CU Cable
12.0%
Full load loss (%)
10.0%
Volt increase
8.0% y = 0.0013x + 0.0021
Est. Real loss
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Cable length to wind farm (km)
Figure 9 Losses above around 2% will normally make it feasible to increase the voltage.
Above an example showing the losses versus cable length. It is seen that the loss is
0.13% + 0.2% per km cable length for the connecting cable between land and off shore
wind farm. So e.g. at 10 km connection it will be 1.3% + 0.2% = 1.5%.
Additionally there will be losses in the internal cable connection in the wind farm.
The voltage increase at 50 km cable length is below 6% so this should cause no problems.

Efficiency versus cost - wind farm layout – WTG price
and modifications for offshore purpose
The price of the WTG is off shore as well as on shore the most important part of the
project.
What is important is the price increase of the offshore “versions”. From Vestas following
add-ons for Horns Rev off shore project are identified:
Extras at Vestas 2 MW off shore WTG

Helio-platform (Helicopter landing)
Stationary tool box in each WTG
Improved tower surface
Nacelle with heaters and temperature regulators
Extra platforms in tower (for grid connection and handy room)
Containers for garbage
Survival kit for 3 days for service personnel
150 t tower where normal are 110 t to adapt to monopillar foundation
2 flight marking lamps on nacelle
Red paint on blade tips
The above mentioned increase price around 10% rel. to standard 2 MW
So a price increase of up to 10% can be expected, but not all off shore projects have all
the mentioned extras. E.g. the Helicopter platform will normally not be required. This is
mainly due to the rough wave climate in the North Sea that makes access for service
sometimes very difficult by boat. Also the extra tower costs are special. On the other hand,
off shore projects will often give a quantity discount due to the large size.
WTG price non offshore, per kW
1000 Land
Offshore
900
Price (€/kW)
800
700
600
500
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
WTG size (kW)
Figure 10 Examples on WTG prices mainly on shore from Danish WTG catalogue 2001 (EMD). The two very
different offshore prices for 2 MW WTGs is Middelgrunden (Bonus) and Horns Rev (Vestas), where the Bonus
turbines are with a smaller rotor diameter and a smaller hub height, but at the Horns rev solution there are also
much extra equipment (e.g. Helicopter platform) that can explain the difference.

WTG prices vary quite much. In the figure, the latest overview of Danish WTGs (WTG-
survey November 2001) and two offshore examples are shown. Note that the rotor
diameter of course is important. The low WTG price offshore is from Middelgrunden, 2 MW
Bonus with 76 m rotor, which can be considered as a DEMO project and thereby low price
– the other offshore are Horns Rev, Vestas with 80 m rotor diameter (10% more swept
area). This price must be considered realistic so far. So concluding a price level around
850 €/kW should be realistic for a feasibility study.
Wind farm layout

Different analyses on layout have been made.
Park efficiency for different spacing. Square layout (9 x

9 WTGs)
103
Park efficiency (%)
98
93
Note: The existing PARK
88 8 diameter spacing in a larger array model may calculate up to
is probably close to the optimum, 20% to high energy yield at
83 where cable costs and additionally large wind farms.
losses are included.
78
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Spacing (RD)
Figure 11 See also the last parts of this report, where an example on economic optimisation of layout distances
is performed
An important factor in a larger array is the spacing. The figure above illustrates a 9 x 9
matrix. One factor that can move the spacing decision is the offshore territory available
and how much territory is within an appropriate water depth, relative to the desired project
size. An important reason for not to be to exact on the “optimal” spacing is that the present
array loss calculation model might not work correctly with large wind farms. There are
some indications supporting this. (Steen Frandsen, RISØ). Steen Frandsen recommends
increasing the roughness class within the wind farm area to class 2.4 (Z0 = 0.2m) in order
to compensate for the model uncertainties. This gives for the Rødsand/Nysted project a
decrease of 15% in calculated energy production. Rødsand has optimised layout and have
North-South 5.8 RD spacing (9 WTGs per row) and East-West 10.5 RD spacing (8 row’s of
WTGs).
We have to await useable measurements from Horns Rev, and more research activity
within this field.

Park efficiency for different rotation angles of square
layout (5 RD, 9 x 9 WTGs)
87
86.5
Best angle
Park efficiency (%)
86 increase with
0.35 % relative
85.5 to poorest
85
84.5
84
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Base angle (deg)
Figure 12 Rotation angle of a 9 x 9 matrix only change energy production very little.
Another investigation made is rotating the matrix. It is seen that it makes almost no
difference, less than 0.35% (with the given wind climate, which is DK).
Summing up on Feasibility Changes relative to on shore

Summing up all the findings considering energy production and prices, a final conclusion
can be made based partly on site-specific conditions, where the Danish wind distribution
has been used.
Extra costs going offshore:
WTG: up to 10% extra

Foundation: A factor 7 more expensive – or 10 – 20% increase of total project price.
Grid connection: Much dependent on land connection facilities (but this is also the case for
land based wind farms) – the extra offshore part will typically increase the total project
price 10% as a minimum Besides this add 0,25% per km. distance to shore can be
considered.
Additional losses, 0.13% per km + 0,2%.
How the extra costs/losses compare with the extra energy production is then the very
important question. This is solved for an example in the figure below. Here we add 30%
total in the costs just for going off shore (this could be 5% for WTG, 15% for foundation
and 10% for grid) + the variable costs and losses due to sea cable connection.

3 MW - 80 m hub - on shore roughness class: 2 - main wind direction: along shore
130%
Improved feasibility (Yield -
120%
loss and cost increase)
110%
Yield increase
100%
Feasibility increase
90%
80%
70%
60%
-9000
-6000
-3000
3000
6000
9000
12000
15000
18000
21000
24000
27000
30000
33000
36000
39000
42000
45000
48000
Distance from coastline (m)
Figure 13 Feasibility 6 km offshore is approximately the same as 6 km on shore - and the "ideal" distance off
shore in this example.
Interesting in the example in the figure is that at the given assumptions, a site 6 km off
shore are the most feasible – and at a distance of 6 km from shore on land (flat land), the
feasibility is exactly the same (if the operational cost do not differ). Most feasible is a site
directly on the coastline, but even better would be a mountain ridge or hill near the coast,
see next example.
Yield and feasibility change with distance to shore line (south) at

"de Vandellos" Nuclear Power Plant, Catalunia, Spain
200%
180%
160% Yiels increase

140% Feasibility increase
120%
From here water
dept is uncertain
100%
80%
60%
(5,000
(4,000
(3,000
(2,000
(1,000
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
-
Distance offshore to shore line (m)
Figure 14 Another example at the Ebro Delta south of Barcelona, Spain. Here the mountains on shore and the
fact that the main wind direction is from shore makes things look much more complex.

Visual impact/integration
The visual impact is often considered as the most critical part for offshore installations.
Here are two possibilities – to make a nice layout, that match the surroundings or to bring
the wind farm so far away that it is almost invisible.
A good example on a nice layout adapted to the surroundings is “Middelgrunden”. (See

http://Middelgrunden.VentusVigor.com for many good photos etc.
Visualisations are an efficient tool for demonstrating the visual influence. Here are 3
variants:
Photomontage: Take photos from important locations and render WTGs on top of photo.
2D animation: Let the WTGs rotate – need a PC for presentation
3D animation: Build an artificial landscape of the surroundings and sail/fly around to see
the wind farm from different angles. Need a PC for presentation.
All 3 types can be performed with help from the WindPRO software tool.
Figure 15 An example of a photomontage from a water tower – normally locations on the coastline will be used
for photomontages
To make the wind farm fully invisible from land, needs a large distance, see figure below.

Distance to make WTGs "invisible" due to earth curvature
180
160
Meter, that "disapear"
These values to the left Eyeheight: 2 m

140 of zero value show meter
120 horison seen behind
WTG
Eyeheight: 5 m
100
Eyeheight: 10 m
80
60 Eyeheight: 25 m
40
Eyeheight: 50 m
20
- Eyeheight: 100 m
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
Typically hub height,
3 MW (80m)
Meter distance to "observer" Typically blade tip
height, 3 MW (125m)
Figure 16 At a distance of 45 km and an eye height of 2 m, a 3 MW WTG with blade tip height of 125 m is just
invisible. At larger eye heights, e.g. 25m, you need 50 km distance to hide 80 m behind the earth curvature.
Noise from off shore wind farms

Noise is normally not considered a problem for off shore wind farms. But with the new
Swedish calculation models, it might be become a problem in some areas. Below results
of calculations with different models are shown.
Minimum required distance regarding Noise for 9x9x3MW (108 dBA)

square layout, 5RD (450 m) in row and row distance
New Swedish off-shore
ISO-9613-2 (0 met)
40 dBA
DK-rules 45 dBA
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Figure 17 In order to stay below 40 dBA (this is the demand in Sweden and e.g. Poland – in Denmark and
Germany 45 is the demand in “open land” – at villages it is also 40 dBA) 2.7 km distance is needed for a large
wind farm with the new Swedish guidelines. Calculated with the international ISO regulations it is only 1.6 km.

The map in next figure illustrates the noise emission.
Figure 18 Noise emissions from an offshore wind farm based on the new Swedish calculation model, which is
integrated as an option in the WindPRO software tool.
Protection Interests
These will often be mentioned as “killer assumptions”, as just one important protection
interest can stop the project, no matter how good it is in all other senses.
So it is important to start clearing if there are any and how important they seem to be. As
an example the RAMSAR regions (EU-bird protection) can be mentioned as regions,
where there are a VETO against wind farms.
There should be a common EU databank on protection interests, but maybe it does not
cover all offshore aspects – and one can never be sure it is complete. So a hearing round
to all relevant partners will normally be needed – and based on the feedback, there might
be a conclusion. Of course the individual countries standard procedures for getting
permission has to be followed later on – in the feasibility phase pre-contacts will be a
recommendable way to go.

Software Development for Offshore Optimisation
The WindPRO software tool is improved in several ways to better support offshore
development. While WindPRO is a general tool for project development, it can already
handle the most important issues for offshore development like park layout design, energy
calculation, economy calculation and environmental documentation (noise, flicker, ZVI,
photomontage and animation). But for offshore some needs for improvements has been
identified, the most important of which are:
1. More advanced park layout design (arc layout and parallel rows in radials)
2. Optimisation of “regular pattern layouts” including water depth considerations
These two developed features will here be introduced.
More advanced park layout design (arc layout and parallel rows in radials)
The Park Design Object
The Park Design Object creates regular pattern layouts. Following regular patterns are
available in latest version of WindPRO (2.4):
Below the four different regular patterns is illustrated:

There are handles, which makes it possible with a mouse drag to change all figures
defining the rotation, distances, position and specific angles/radius depending of type of
pattern.
The fixed WTG is marked with a circle around. This is the WTG in the pattern that
always stay at the same position except if the middle point is moved, while this point can
be used for a parallel move of the complete pattern. The fixed WTG can be changed to
another WTG in the pattern simply by right clicking at a WTG symbol and choose “Mark as
fixed WTG”.
Figure 19 Definition of base and side angles
.
Figure 20 The only parameter that cannot be changed graphically is the row offset, see figure.

The row off set in the parallel row layout makes it possible to shift every second row from
0 to 1 in row distances. Here illustrated by the value 0.5.
Figure 21 Definition of layout in PARK design object.
It is possible to keep continuous control of number of WTGs or total installed capacity

within the area specified by the WTG-area object (see next graphic) when the specific
WTG area object is selected in the drop down menu in the bottom. The object can ensure
that user defined minimum distances between WTGs and rows are met. Both meters and
Rotor diameters (RD) can be used as measure unit.
For support of the design, specific areas can be digitised and given properties helping with
fulfilment of specific demands. The object used for this is the WTG area object.
The WTG Area Object
The WTG Area Object is used to define the areas to use for siting the WTGs. The limits of
these areas are digitised directly using an on-screen map. You can also import coordinate
files defining the limits - at present in the formats: .dxf (AutoCad/Autodesk) or
.shp (Shape files from Arc View GIS files).
For each partial area individual requirements can be set regarding:
Number of WTGs (min and max)

Total installed capacity (min and max)
Minimum distance between two WTGs
Putting the PARK design object on top of a WTG area object, gives the park designer the
opportunity to design a Windfarm with regular pattern layout, where only the WTGs inside
the WTG areas are included.
Figure 22 The green WTGs are inside the area, the purple outside. Right click at the park design object and
choose “realize” and only the WTGs inside will appear as “real” WTGs, which then can be calculated by the
respective modules.
Optimisation of “regular pattern layouts” including water depth considerations
The module OPTIMIZE has been expanded to handle regular pattern optimisation. For
regular pattern, the optimisation process differs from “random pattern” by keeping the
relative positions of the WTGs within the specified layout.
Starting the OPTIMIZE calculation module gives following options:

Figure 23 First the wake decay constant should be set to 0.04 as this is the so far best experience for offshore
wind farms.
Figure 24 At the Optimise tab sheet, the “regular pattern” method is chosen and the Park design object that is
established will be chosen by default. If there are more Park design objects in the project, the one that shall be
used must be selected here.
The wind recourses can be taken from either a wind resource map file (.rsf) of from a
meteo object, holding the wind distribution that is expected to cover the whole area of
interest. This is common for offshore projects as the same wind distribution will be
expected for the whole wind farm area. Onshore orography and roughness typically will
result in varying wind distribution over the area.

It can be chosen to ensure minimum park efficiency of, e.g. 95% (max. 5% array losses),
which can be a design criterion in order to drop configurations that are estimated as non-
relevant from an economic point of view.
Figure 25 When the Optimise module is started, the layout and the optimise controller can be seen at one
screen.
Now the task is to find the layout, which maximize the energy production, without going
below specified (95%) park efficiency and, if this is chosen, is within the WTG area.
The WTG in the lower left corner is fixed. Within the chosen pattern (here parallel rows)
and the WTG type and hub height chosen at the park design object, following parameters
can be varied:
Change:
• X and Y offset (can move the whole layout in steps in X or Y direction)
• row count (number of rows)
• WTGs per row
• row distance
• in row distance
• base angle (see figure 19)
• side angle (see figure 19)
• row off set (see figure 20)
The parameters to be tested are checked in the checkboxes and are set for each
parameter:

from,
to, and
step values
When the whole set up is created, the software performs a run with all combinations. So it
can be a good idea not to test too many parameters in one optimisation, but maybe group
the runs in order to limit the number of calculations – or to start running with a higher step
value and then limit the from – to values based on the first run before fine optimisation with
smaller step values. Results and layout specifications can be copied to clipboard for
further processing in spreadsheet tools, e.g. MS Excel.
Figure 26 Figure above shows partly a calculation with the initial layout (previous figure) and a run where the
highest production is found, here 10.4% higher production within same area are obtained, but based on 3 WTGs
more, still within the selected area.
Output to spreadsheet for further optimisation

A specific run can be dumped to clipboard, and then pasted into a spreadsheet, e.g. MS
Excel.

Name/ID: xxxxxxx
Layout: Parallel rows
WTG: DUMMY;3000;XXXXXXxxxxxxx
WTG size: 3000 kW
Rotor diameter 90 m
Hub height (m) 80 m
Water dept (if not calculated) 20 m
Coord system UTM WGS84_z33
WTG Row In row Base Side offset
Result x_Fixed_ y_Fixed_W Row per dist dist angle angle (0-1 in
WTGs (MWh/y) WTG TG count row (m) (m) (deg) (deg) row
24 128.009 722.417 5.939.230 7 8 1500 900 90 55 0
24 128.064 722.417 5.939.230 7 8 1500 900 100 55 0
26 138.149 722.417 5.939.230 7 8 1500 900 110 55 0
22 117.730 722.417 5.939.230 7 8 1500 950 90 55 0
25 133.456 722.417 5.939.230 7 8 1500 950 100 55 0
26 138.413 722.417 5.939.230 7 8 1500 950 110 55 0
20 107.434 722.417 5.939.230 7 8 1500 1000 90 55 0
Figure 27 A part of the clipboard dump with the most important values. Besides these also the number of WTGs
within specific water depths is included if this part of the calculation is activated.
With the clipboard dump to spreadsheet including all “runs” in the parameter variation, it is
possible to perform an economic optimisation. A spreadsheet tool is prepared for this
purpose, calculating cable lengths etc.
There has been established a number of cost functions, in which a lookup function based
on WTG size or installed MW find the relevant costs for each layout.
Based on estimated costs and losses calculated in the spreadsheet and production
calculated by WindPRO for each layout, the layout with highest production per investment
can be found. This might not be the “best solution”, but it will be the layout with shortest
payback time based on pure income vs. investment analyse.
Budget for lowest cost/kWh: Layout #: 45
Put your own data in the yellow cells Number 100 Each 3,5 MW
See also cell R5.. for foundation cost Installed power 350 MW
Included
And tab sheet Cost functions Cost, 1000 € Cost €/kW Percent losses
User input WTG cost 297.500 850 55,0% Array

WTG price; default 850 k€/kW Foundation cost 125.821 359 23,3% 11,3%
WTG price, specific 850 k€/kW Main grid connection cost 53.430 153 9,9% Electric
WTG price 2.975.000 k€/WTG Internal cable cost 10.080 29 1,9% 7,2%
Dist to shore 12000 m Area costs 8.100 23 1,5%
Area cost 2 k€/ha Other costs (planning, risk) 46.000 131 8,5%
Cable losses, main cable 0,15 %/km Total 540.931 1.546 100,0%
Cable losses, internal cables 0,1 %/km Production and cost/kWh/y 927.961 MWh/y 583 €/kWh/y
Clipboard layout: Paste in cell A14 !
Name/ID:
Guideline to offshore optimisation spreadsheet.
Run the optimisation from WindPRO with "regular patterns", and dump each step to clipboard.
Layout: Parallel rows Paste the clipboard content to this sheet where it is marked (put cursor in A14 before paste)
WTG: DUMMY 3500 100.0 !O!Then copy the rows from AD 23 to AO 23 down to last calculation result row.
WTG size: 3500 Put your own data into the yellow cells both at this sheet and at the cost function sheet.
In column AM-AO you will find the cost figures for the individuel layouts, which helps you finding the
Rotor diameter: 100
optimal layout.
Hub height (m): 95 You might proceed finding the optimal WTG size by running more similar calculations based on other
Water dept: (if not calculated) 20 WTG types, sizes or hub heights.
Coord system: UTM ED50 Zone: 30
WTGs Result X Y Row count WTGs per r Row distanIn row distaBase angleSide angle Row offset
100 636143,96 722973 5934705,091 10 10 500 100 11,94 98,01 0
100 771595,463 722973 5934705,091 10 10 500 200 11,94 98,01 0
Figure 28 The optimisation spreadsheet, where the clipboard dump simply is pasted, and the complete
economic optimisation calculation is performed automatically.

Total cost (€/kW)
Cost vs layout
Cost (€/MWh/y)
WTGs
2.000 35
1.800
30
1.600
Number of WTGs
1.400 25
1.200 20
1.000
800 15
600 10
400
5
200
- 0
1
10
19
28
37
46
55
64
73
82
91
100
109
118
127
136
145
154
Layout number
Figure 29 A graphic presentation of a number of layouts auto generated from WindPRO.
With this tool, it is possible to run a number of systematic analyses calculating the layout
with the best performance.
Below an example on a simple run to illustrate the capability:
Example investigating best row and in row distance

We assume here a fixed Wind farm size of 100 x 100 WTGs in a fixed layout shape, and
that the water depth is equal for all WTGs.

Figure 30 Layout left with same in row and row distance, right with the in row distance reduced, but same row
distance. So in this example the rows are oriented from southeast to northwest.
With the optimise module in WindPRO, we perform a run where row distance is changed
from 5 to 10 RD with 2.5 RD as step size (3 runs) The in row distance is varied from 1
RD to 20 RD in 20 step (20 run) – so in total 60 run is made which produce 60 result lines
in the clipboard file.

The 60 run is pasted into the spreadsheet, and the results (based on some cost functions,
that might only mach a specific site) appear automatically.
Budget for lowest cost/kWh: Layout #: 45
Number 100 Each 3,5 MW

Installed power 350 MW
Included
Cost, 1000 € Cost €/kW Percent losses
WTG cost 297.500 850 55,0% Array

Foundation cost 125.821 359 23,3% 11,3%
Main grid connection cost 53.430 153 9,9% Electric
Internal cable cost 10.080 29 1,9% 7,2%
Area costs 8.100 23 1,5%
Other costs (planning, risk) 46.000 131 8,5%
Total 540.931 1.546 100,0%
Production and cost/kWh/y 927.961 MWh/y 583 €/kWh/y
Figure 31 The spreadsheet tells immediately which run that has performed best with respect to lowest price per
produced annual energy (after losses). Here run 45, which have 10 RD row distance and 5 RD in row distance.
10 x 10 WTG layout
900
850
800
Cost (€/MWh/y)
750
700
650
600
550
500 5 RD row spacing 7.5 RD row spacing 10 RD row spacing
450
11
13
15
17
19
11
13
15
17
19
11
13
15
17
19
1
3
5
7
9
1
3
5
7
9
1
3
5
7
9
In row distance (RD)
Figure 32 There has been performed 30 runs varying the in row distance for tree different row distances. The 10
RD (Rotor Diameter) spacing performs best, –and has its optimum at 5 RD in row distance.
Below there will be given some details behind the calculations above.

Array loss (%)
Electric losses (%)
Internal cable cost (k€)
Area costs (k€)
50% 35000
45%
30000
40%
35% 25000
30%
Cost (k€)
20000
Loss
25%
15000
20%
15% 10000
10%
5000
5%
0% 0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
In row distance (RD)
Figure 33 The variables in this calculation: Array loss, electric loss, internal cable cost and area cost These in
combination gives the differences in cost/production. But there might also be e.g. increased service costs by
larger distances between the WTGs that should be taken into account. The spacing used are similar to figure 24
The variables in this test case are:

1. Array loss
2. Electric loss
3. Internal cable cost
4. Area cost
The area cost can be quite difficult, as often no “variable cost” will be paid reflecting the
area used, but since a larger area is used, there will be poorer possibilities for future
expansions, which have a price, that is very difficult to set. Here is just used a fixed price
per ha used. Also the electric losses are difficult, as they depend on the chosen cable
solution, which might vary with the size of the wind farm. Here is simply assumed a fixed
loss in percent per km cable.
For further information on the described optimisation features, which were not released in
a final version when this report was written, please contact the WindPRO team at mail
windpro@emd.dk


Feasibility Study Guidelines

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Feasibility Study Guidelines

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Offshore Wind Energy Projects

Feasibility Study Guidelines

By Per Nielsen, EMD

Offshore foundation cost

- - 100 100 - 200 200 - 300 300 - 400 400 - 500

This document gives a number of guidelines for calculation of feasibility

SEAWIND – Altener project – Feasibility Study Guidelines 1

MAIN DESIGN CRITERIA OVERVIEW...............................................................................5

POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT (PPA)........................................................................7

WIND RESOURCE ASSESSMENT – MICRO LEVEL........................................................8

WATER DEPTH / FOUNDATION COSTS ..........................................................................9

EFFICIENCY VERSUS COST - WIND FARM LAYOUT – WTG PRICE AND

VISUAL IMPACT/INTEGRATION .....................................................................................21

NOISE FROM OFF SHORE WIND FARMS ......................................................................22

PROTECTION INTERESTS ..............................................................................................23

SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT FOR OFFSHORE OPTIMISATION ..................................24

Optimisation of “regular pattern layouts” including water depth considerations ....................27

Output to spreadsheet for further optimisation............................................................................30

SEAWIND – Altener project – Feasibility Study Guidelines 3

Costs (Denmark) Cost onshore 874 €/kW Offshore-extra:

---> Politicians (municipality/county)

SEAWIND – Altener project – Feasibility Study Guidelines 5

SEAWIND – Altener project – Feasibility Study Guidelines 6

Figure 2 European Wind Atlas (Risø)

Power Purchase Agreement (PPA)

SEAWIND – Altener project – Feasibility Study Guidelines 7

For further info on expected energy yield, the possibilities are:

1. Calculation based on regional wind statistics based on terrain description and

Roughly, the uncertainty based on the 4 levels is:

To establish off shore measurements, minimum a 50 m high measure mast should be

SEAWIND – Altener project – Feasibility Study Guidelines 8

90% From sea

Figure 3 Change in energy production with distance from coastline

Water Depth / Foundation Costs

3 types of foundations are normally considered as alternatives:

SEAWIND – Altener project – Feasibility Study Guidelines 9

Increase per m additional water depth roughly: 2%

The foundation costs represent 20-25% of the total project costs

SEAWIND – Altener project – Feasibility Study Guidelines 10

Figure 4 Gravity foundation cost breakdown

A spreadsheet model developed for a rough calculation of foundation is shown below:

Basis size: Basis cost

10 m dept 2% Percent change per m dept

80 Rotor 80% Percent change per load factor change

SEAWIND – Altener project – Feasibility Study Guidelines 11

- - 100 100 - 200 200 - 300 300 - 400 400 - 500

SEAWIND – Altener project – Feasibility Study Guidelines 12

350 needed 350

SEAWIND – Altener project – Feasibility Study Guidelines 13

Internal cables between WTGs

Transformer Station Off Shore

Other Grid Connection Costs

Grid Losses and Voltage Increase

SEAWIND – Altener project – Feasibility Study Guidelines 14

Figure 8 Loss and voltage increase versus load

SEAWIND – Altener project – Feasibility Study Guidelines 15

Loss and voltage at full load, different cable lenghts, 30

SEAWIND – Altener project – Feasibility Study Guidelines 16

Extras at Vestas 2 MW off shore WTG

WTG price non offshore, per kW

SEAWIND – Altener project – Feasibility Study Guidelines 17

Wind farm layout

Park efficiency for different spacing. Square layout (9 x